Ortega v. Valmonte

7/30/2019 Ortega v. Valmonte

1/22

THIRD DIVISION

LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA, G.R. No. 157451Petitioner,

Present:

Panganiban,J.,Chairman,

- versus - Sandoval-Gutierrez,Corona,Carpio Morales,

and Garcia,JJ

JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, Promulgated:Respondent.

December 16, 2005x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

he law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it

rests the burden of showing why it should not be allowed. In the

present case, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden

T


2/22

satisfactorily. For this reason, the Court cannot attribute any reversible

error on the part of the appellate tribunal that allowed the probate of the

will.


3/22

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review[1]under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the December 12, 2002

Decision[2]and the March 7, 2003 Resolution[3]of the Court of Appeals

(CA) in CA-GR CV No. 44296. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal isGRANTED, and the Decision

appealed from isREVERSED

andSET ASIDE

. In its placejudgment is rendered approving and allowing probate to the said lastwill and testament of Placido Valmonte and ordering the issuance ofletters testamentary to the petitioner Josefina Valmonte. Let thiscase be remanded to the court a quofor further and concomitantproceedings.[4]

The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for

Reconsideration.

The Facts

The facts were summarized in the assailed Decision of the CA, as

follows:

x x x: Like so many others before him, Placido toiled and livedfor a long time in the United States until he finally reachedretirement. In 1980, Placido finally came home to stay in thePhilippines, and he lived in the house and lot located at #9200Catmon St., San Antonio Village, Makati, which he owned in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn1


4/22

common with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte and titled in their names inTCT 123468. Two years after his arrival from the United States andat the age of 80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old, in aceremony solemnized by Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr. on February 5,1982. But in a little more than two years of wedded bliss, Placido

died on October 8, 1984 of a cause written down as CORPULMONALE.

Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written inEnglish and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983but acknowledged only on August 9, 1983. The first page containsthe entire testamentary dispositions and a part of the attestationclause, and was signed at the end or bottom of that page by thetestator and on the left hand margin by the three instrumentalwitnesses. The second page contains the continuation of the

attestation clause and the acknowledgment, and was signed by thewitnesses at the end of the attestation clause and again on the lefthand margin. It provides in the body that:

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PLACIDOVALMONTE IN THE NAME OF THE LORD AMEN:

I, PLACIDO VALMONTE, of legal age, married toJosefina Cabansag Valmonte, and a resident of 9200Catmon Street, Makati, Metro Manila, 83 years of age andbeing of sound and disposing mind and memory, do hereby

declare this to be my last will and testament:

1. It is my will that I be buried in the CatholicCemetery, under the auspices of the Catholic Church inaccordance with the rites and said Church and that asuitable monument to be erected and provided my byexecutrix (wife) to perpetuate my memory in the minds of myfamily and friends;

2. I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife,JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the

follow-described properties, which belongs to me as [co-owner]:

a. Lot 4-A, Block 13 described on plan Psd-28575,LRC, (GLRO), situated in Makati, Metro Manila,described and covered by TCT No. 123468 of theRegister of Deeds of Pasig, Metro-Manilaregistered jointly as co-owners with my deceased


5/22

sister (Ciriaca Valmonte), having share and sharealike;

b. 2-storey building standing on the above-describedproperty, made of strong and mixed materials

used as my residence and my wife and located atNo. 9200 Catmon Street, Makati, Metro Manilaalso covered by Tax Declaration No. A-025-00482,Makati, Metro-Manila, jointly in the name of mydeceased sister, Ciriaca Valmonte and myself asco-owners, share and share alike or equal co-owners thereof;

3. All the rest, residue and remainder of my real andpersonal properties, including my savings account bankbook in USA which is in the possession of my nephew, and

all others whatsoever and wherever found, I give, devise andbequeath to my said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;

4. I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte assole executrix of my last will and testament, and it is my willthat said executrix be exempt from filing a bond;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set myhand this 15thday of June 1983 in Quezon City, Philippines.

The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by Leticiaon the grounds that:

1. Petitioner failed to allege all assets of thetestator, especially those found in the USA;

2. Petitioner failed to state the names, ages, andresidences of the heirs of the testator; or to give themproper notice pursuant to law;

3. Will was not executed and attested as required by lawand legal solemnities and formalities were not compliedwith;

4. Testator was mentally incapable to make a will at thetime of the alleged execution he being in an advancesate of senility;


6/22

5. Will was executed under duress, or the influence of fearor threats;

6. Will was procured by undue and improper influence andpressure on the part of the petitioner and/or her agents

and/or assistants; and/or7. Signature of testator was procured by fraud, or trick, and

he did not intend that the instrument should be his will atthe time of affixing his signature thereto;

and she also opposed the appointment as Executrix of Josefinaalleging her want of understanding and integrity.

At the hearing, the petitioner Josefina testified and called as

witnesses the notary public Atty. Floro Sarmiento who prepared andnotarized the will, and the instrumental witnesses spouses EugenioGomez, Jr. and Feliza Gomez and Josie Collado. For theopposition, the oppositor Leticia and her daughter Mary Jane Ortegatestified.

According to Josefina after her marriage with the testator theylived in her parents house at Salingcob, Bacnotan, La Union but theycame to Manila every month to get his $366.00 monthly pension andstayed at the said Makati residence. There were times though when

to shave off on expenses, the testator would travel alone. And itwas in one of his travels by his lonesome self when the notarial willwas made. The will was witnessed by the spouses Eugenio andFeliza Gomez, who were their wedding sponsors, and by JosieCollado. Josefina said she had no knowledge of the existence of thelast will and testament of her husband, but just serendipitously foundit in his attache case after his death. It was only then that shelearned that the testator bequeathed to her his properties and shewas named the executrix in the said will. To her estimate, the valueof property both real and personal left by the testator is worth more

or less P100,000.00. Josefina declared too that the testator neversuffered mental infirmity because despite his old age he went aloneto the market which is two to three kilometers from their homecooked and cleaned the kitchen and sometimes if she could notaccompany him, even traveled to Manila alone to claim his monthlypension. Josefina also asserts that her husband was in good healthand that he was hospitalized only because of a cold but whicheventually resulted in his death.


7/22

Notary Public Floro Sarmiento, the notary public who

notarized the testators will, testified that it was in the first week ofJune 1983 when the testator together with the three witnesses of thewill went to his house cum law office and requested him to prepare

his last will and testament. After the testator instructed him on theterms and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public toldthem to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to prepare it.

After he had prepared the will the notary public kept it safely hiddenand locked in his drawer. The testator and his witnesses returnedon the appointed date but the notary public was out of town so theywere instructed by his wife to come back on August 9, 1983, andwhich they did. Before the testator and his witnesses signed theprepared will, the notary public explained to them each and everyterm thereof in Ilocano, a dialect which the testator spoke and

understood. He likewise explained that though it appears that thewill was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, 1983,the day when it should have been executed had he not gone out oftown, the formal execution was actually on August 9, 1983. Hereasoned that he no longer changed the typewritten date of June 15,1983 because he did not like the document to appear dirty. Thenotary public also testified that to his observation the testator wasphysically and mentally capable at the time he affixed his signatureon the will.

The attesting witnesses to the will corroborated the testimonyof the notary public, and testified that the testator went alone to thehouse of spouses Eugenio and Feliza Gomez at GSIS Village,Quezon City and requested them to accompany him to the house of

Atty. Floro Sarmiento purposely for his intended will; that after givinghis instructions to Atty. Floro Sarmiento, they were told to return onJune 15, 1983; that they returned on June 15, 1983 for the executionof the will but were asked to come back instead on August 9, 1983because of the absence of the notary public; that the testatorexecuted the will in question in their presence while he was of soundand disposing mind and that he was strong and in good health; thatthe contents of the will was explained by the notary public in theIlocano and Tagalog dialect and that all of them as witnessesattested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and ofeach other. And that during the execution, the testators wife,Josefina was not with them.


8/22

The oppositor Leticia declared that Josefina should not inheritalone because aside from her there are other children from thesiblings of Placido who are just as entitled to inherit from him. Sheattacked the mental capacity of the testator, declaring that at thetime of the execution of the notarial will the testator was already 83

years old and was no longer of sound mind. She knew whereof shespoke because in 1983 Placido lived in the Makati residence andasked Leticias family to live with him and they took care of him.During that time, the testators physical and mental condition showeddeterioration, aberrations and senility. This was corroborated by herdaughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom Placido took a fancy andwanted to marry.

Sifting through the evidence, the court a quoheld that [t]heevidence adduced, reduces the opposition to two grounds, namely:

1. Non-compliance with the legal solemnities and formalitiesin the execution and attestation of the will; and

2. Mental incapacity of the testator at the time of theexecution of the will as he was then in an advanced stateof senility

It then found these grounds extant and proven, andaccordingly disallowed probate.[5]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Reversing the trial court, the appellate court admitted the will of

Placido Valmonte to probate. The CA upheld the credibility of the notary

public and the subscribing witnesses who had acknowledged the due

execution of the will. Moreover, it held that the testator had testamentary
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5


9/22

capacity at the time of the execution of the will. It added that his sexual

exhibitionism and unhygienic, crude and impolite ways[6]did not make

him a person of unsound mind.

Hence, this Petition.[7]

Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:

I.

Whether or not the findings of the probate court are entitled to greatrespect.

II.

Whether or not the signature of Placido Valmonte in the subject willwas procured by fraud or trickery, and that Placido Valmonte neverintended that the instrument should be his last will and testament.

III.

Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at thetime he allegedly executed the subject will.[8]

In short, petitioner assails the CAs allowance of the probate of the

will of Placido Valmonte.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6


10/22


11/22

This Courts Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

Main Issue:

Probate of a Will

At the outset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised in a

Petition for Review under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As

an exception, however, the evidence presented during the trial may be

examined and the factual matters resolved by this Court when, as in the

instant case, the findings of fact of the appellate court differ from those of

the trial court.[9]

The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not

necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be allowed.

The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must be satisfied for

the probate of a will.

[10]

Verily, Article 839 of the Civil Code states the

instances when a will may be disallowed, as follows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9


12/22

Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of thefollowing cases:

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been compliedwith;

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentallyincapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or theinfluence of fear, or threats;

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure andinfluence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person;

(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the

instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing hissignature thereto.

In the present case, petitioner assails the validity of Placido

Valmontes will by imputing fraud in its execution and challenging the

testators state of mind at the time.

Existence of Fraud in theExecution of a Will

Petitioner does not dispute the due observance of the formalities in

the execution of the will, but maintains that the circumstances surrounding

it are indicative of the existence of fraud. Particularly, she alleges that


13/22

respondent, who is the testators wife and sole beneficiary, conspired with

the notary public and the three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to

sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the

execution and the attestation of the will.

Petitioner contends that it was highly dubious for a woman at the

prime of her young life [to] almost immediately plunge into marriage with a

man who [was] thrice her age x x x and who happened to be [a] Fil-

American pensionado,[11]thus casting doubt on the intention of

respondent in seeking the probate of the will. Moreover, it supposedly

defies human reason, logic and common experience [12]for an old man

with a severe psychological condition to have willingly signed a last will and

testament.

We are not convinced. Fraud is a trick, secret device, false

statement, or pretense, by which the subject of it is cheated. It may be of

such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or

contents of the document which he executes, or it may relate to some

extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception regarding which the testator
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11


14/22

is led to make a certain will which, but for the fraud, he would not have

made.[13]

We stress that the party challenging the will bears the burden of

proving the existence of fraud at the time of its execution.[14]The burden

to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing

of credible evidence of fraud.[15] Unfortunately in this case, other than the

self-serving allegations of petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever

presented.

It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not

affect the due execution of a will.[16] That the testator was tricked into

signing it was not sufficiently established by the fact that he had instituted

his wife, who was more than fifty years his junior, as the sole beneficiary;

and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were the ones who had

taken the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight years. [17]

Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict

between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document,

because the law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn13


15/22

executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.[18] More important,

the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more

credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator

and of one another.[19] Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must

acknowledge the will before a notary public.[20] In any event, we agree with

the CA that the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed

execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by

the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.[21]

The pertinent transcript of stenographic notes taken on June 11,

1985, November 25, 1985, October 13, 1986, and October 21, 1987 -- as

quoted by the CA -- are reproduced respectively as follows:

Atty. Floro Sarmiento:

Q You typed this document exhibit C, specifying the date June15 when the testator and his witnesses were supposed to bein your office?

A Yes sir.

Q On June 15, 1983, did the testator and his witnesses come toyour house?

A They did as of agreement but unfortunately, I was out of town.

x x x x x x x x x

Q The document has been acknowledged on August 9, 1983 asper acknowledgement appearing therein. Was this the actualdate when the document was acknowledged?

A Yes sir.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn18


16/22

Q What about the date when the testator and the three

witnesses affixed their respective signature on the first andsecond pages of exhibit C?

A On that particular date when it was acknowledged, August 9,

1983.

Q Why did you not make the necessary correction on the dateappearing on the body of the document as well as theattestation clause?

A Because I do not like anymore to make some alterations so Iput it in my own handwriting August 9, 1983 on theacknowledgement. (tsn, June 11, 1985, pp. 8-10)

Eugenio Gomez:

Q It appears on the first page Mr. Witness that it is dated June15, 1983, whereas in the acknowledgement it is dated August9, 1983, will you look at this document and tell us thisdiscrepancy in the date?

A We went to Atty. Sarmiento together with Placido Valmonteand the two witnesses; that was first week of June and Atty.Sarmiento told us to return on the 15th of June but when wereturned, Atty. Sarmiento was not there.

Q When you did not find Atty. Sarmiento on June 15, 1983, didyou again go back?A We returned on the 9th of August and there we signed.

Q This August 9, 1983 where you said it is there where yousigned, who were your companions?

A The two witnesses, me and Placido Valmonte. (tsn, November25, 1985, pp. 7-8)

Felisa Gomez on cross-examination:

Q Why did you have to go to the office of Atty. Floro Sarmiento,three times?

x x x x x x x x x

A The reason why we went there three times is that, the firstweek of June was out first time. We went there to talk to Atty.


17/22

Sarmiento and Placido Valmonte about the last will andtestament. After that what they have talked what will beplaced in the testament, what Atty. Sarmiento said was that hewill go back on the 15th of June. When we returned on June15, Atty. Sarmiento was not there so we were not able to sign

it, the will. That is why, for the third time we went there onAugust 9 and that was the time we affixed our signature. (tsn,October 13, 1986, pp. 4-6)

Josie Collado:

Q When you did not find Atty. Sarmiento in his house on June15, 1983, what transpired?

A The wife of Atty. Sarmiento told us that we will be back onAugust 9, 1983.

Q And on August 9, 1983 did you go back to the house of Atty.Sarmiento?

A Yes, Sir.

Q For what purpose?A Our purpose is just to sign the will.

Q Were you able to sign the will you mentioned?A Yes sir. (tsn, October 21, 1987, pp. 4-5)[22]

Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a grand

conspiracy in the commission of a fraud. There was no showing that the

witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from the allowance

of the will. The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the

notary are credible evidence of its due execution.[23]

Their testimony

favoring it and the finding that it was executed in accordance with the

formalities required by law should be affirmed,absent any showing of ill

motives.[24]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn22


18/22

Capacityto Make a Will

In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will, the Civil

Code gives the following guidelines:

Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that thetestator be of sound mind at the time of its execution.

Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the

testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that hismind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or shattered by disease, injuryor other cause.

It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time ofmaking the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of,the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of thetestamentary act.

Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound

mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.

The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mindat the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposesthe probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, beforemaking his will was publicly known to be insane, the person whomaintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made itduring a lucid interval.

According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have

the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the

nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the


19/22


20/22

otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does notnecessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or ofunsound mind."[26]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision

and Resolution of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMED. Costs against

petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANAssociate Justice

Chairman, Third Division

W E C O N C U R:

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES CANCIO C. GARCIAAssociate Justice Associate Justice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn26


21/22

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion ofthe Courts Division.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANAssociate Justice

Chairman, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairmans Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the aboveDecision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the

writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.Chief Justice

[1] Rollo, pp. 9-25.[2] Annex A of Petition; id., pp. 26-43. Penned by Justice Roberto A. Barrios

(Fourteenth Division chair) and concurred in by Justices Perlita J. Tria-Tirona andEdgardo F. Sundiam (members).

[3] Annex C of Petition; id., pp. 54-56.[4] CA Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. 43.[5] Id., pp. 3-8 & 28-33.[6] Id., pp. 15 & 40.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref1


22/22

[7] The case was deemed submitted for decision on July 14, 2004, upon this Courtsreceipt of petitioners Memorandum, signed by Atty. Manuel T. de Guia.Respondents Memorandum, filed on April 19, 2004, was signed by Atty. Benigno P.Pulmano.

[8] Petitioners Memorandum, p. 6; rollo, p. 331. Original in uppercase.

[9] Heirs of Saludares v. CA, 420 SCRA 51,January 16, 2004; Heirs of Celestial v. Celestial,408 SCRA 291, August 5, 2003; Garrido v. CA, 421 Phil. 872, November 22,2001;Meralco v. CA, 413 Phil. 338, July 11, 2001.

[10] Leviste v. CA, 169 SCRA 580, January 30, 1989.[11] Petitioners Memorandum, p. 19; rollo, p. 344.[12] Id., pp. 14 & 339.[13] Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines,Vol. III

(1992), p. 166.[14] Pecson v. Coronel, 45 Phil. 216, October 11, 1923.[15] Cuyugan v. Baron, 62 Phil. 859, January 16, 1936.[16]

Heirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson v. CA, 158 SCRA 247, February 26,1988; Pascual v. dela Cruz, 138 Phil. 446, May 30, 196; Rodriguez v. CA, 137 Phil.371,March 28, 1969; In the Matter of the Testate Estate of the Juana Juan Vda. DeMolo, 100 Phil. 344, November 26, 1956; Barrera v. Tampoco, 94 Phil. 346, February 17,1954; Pecson v. Coronel, 45 Phil. 216, October 11, 1923.

[17] Petitioners Memorandum, p. 18; rollo, p. 343.[18] CA Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 36.[19] Article 805, Civil Code.[20] Article 806, id.[21] CA Decision, p. 9; rollo, p. 34.[22] Id., pp. 9-11 & 34-36.[23] Gonzales v. CA, 90 SCRA 183, May 25, 1979; Vda.de Ramos v CA, 81 SCRA 393,

January 31, 1978; Roxas v. Roxas, 87 Phil. 692, December 1, 1950.[24] Gonzales v. CA, supra; Galvez v. Galvez, 26 Phil. 243, December 5, 1913.[25] 92 SCRA 332, July 30, 1979 (citingBugnao v. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163, September 18,

1909).[26] Id., p. 363, per Guerrero,J.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftnref7

Documents

Ortega v. Valmonte